BULLETIN 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



1915: No. 30 



MAY 25 



1915 



A Constitutional Tax for the Support 

of Higher Educational Institutions 

in Texas 

Bibliography and Selected Arguments 



Edited by 

E. D. SHURTER 

Chairman of the University Interscholastic League 




Published by the University six times a month and entered as 

second-class matter at the postoffice at 

AUSTIN. TEXAS. 



DEPARTMENT OF EXTENSION. 

The Department of Hxtension of the University of Texas was es- 
tablished for the purpose of rendering serrlce to the people of the 
State generally, and especially to those who are unable to attend the 
University. The work of this department is carried on under the 
following five divisions: 

Public Discnssion Division. 

This division has immediate charge of "The University Inter- 
schoalstic League." This is an organization of the schools of Texas 
for the purpose of promoting contests in debate, declamation, spell- 
ing, essay- writing, and athletics. The university is desirous of aid- 
ing the schools in the matter of training their students for cltizeoi- 
ship; and also to aid teachers in developing, controlling, and stand- 
ardizing athletic activities in the schools. Every school in Texas, 
no matter how small, should become a member of this organization. 

This division is also engaged in the preparation of reference lists 
and material on various subjects of general interest, and the col- 
lection of "package" libraries for loaning to citizens of Texas upon 
application. Books and pamphlets thus loaned may be kept not 
longer than two weeks. The person to whom material is loaned 
pays the postage both ways. University bulletins need not be re- 
turned unless specially requested. Loan libraries are now ready on 
the following subjects: Agriculture; Airships; Alcohol; Arbitra- 
tion; Athletics; Banks and Banking; Birds; Boy Problem; Boy 
Scouts; Canning Clubs; Ca.pital Punishment; Child Labor; Child 
Study; Child Welfare: Christmas; Cigarette Habit; Civil Service; 
Co-education; Commission Grovornment; Compulsorj"^ Education; 
Conservation of Resources; Contagion and Contagious Diseases; Con- 
vict Labor; Co-operative Marketing; Com; Cost of Living; Cotton; 
Crime and Criminals; Disarmament; Domestic Science; Drama; 
European War; Flies; Games; Germany; Government Ownership of 
Public Utilities; Hogs; Hours of Labor; Immigration; Income Tax; 
Indians; Industrial Education; Initiative and Referendum; Irri- 
gation; Journalism; Juvenile Courts; Kindergarten; Labor Unions; 
Land Tenantry; Manual Training; Merchant Marine; Mexico; Mili- 
tary Education; Milk; Minimum Wage; Monopolies; Monroe Doc- 
trine; Monessori Teaching; Mothers Clubs; Moving Pictures; 
Municipal Improvement; Municipal Ownership; Nature Study; 
Negro; Nutrition; Old Age Pensions; Open and Closed Shop; Panama 
Canal; Panama-Pacific Exposition; Parcel Post; Peace; Pecan Cul- 
ture; Philippines; Playgrounds; Poultry; residential Term; Prison 
Reform; Prohibition; Public Health; Railroads; Recall; Recita- 
tions and Readings; Red Cross; Religious Education; Roads; 
Rural Credit; Rural Life; Rural Schools; Russia; Sanitation; 
School Gardens; Schoolhouses; School Hygiene; School Libraries; 
School Lunches; Sewage; Short Story; Single Tax; Socialism; 
South America; Story Telling; Submarine Warfare; Suffrage- 
Educational Qualification; Tariff; United States Army; Uftited 
States Navy; Woman Labor; Woman Suffrage; Women's Clubs. 

Clippings and miscellaneous material have also been collected on 
various other subjects. Correspondence is invited. Address Exten- 
sion Librarian, University, Austin. 

Public Lecture Division. 

Provision has been made to allow members of the staff of instruc- 
( Continued on inside back cover) 



B122-815-5m-8278 



BULLETIN 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



1915: No. 30 



MAY 25 



1915 



A Constitutional Tax for the Support 

of Higher Educational Institutions 

in Texas 

Bibliography and Selected Arguments 



Edited by 

E. D. SHURTER 

Chairman of the University Interscholastic League 




Published by the University six times a month and entered as 

second-class matter at the postoffice at 

AUSTIN, TEXAS. 






The benefits of education and of 
useful knowledge, generally diffused 
through a community, are essential 
to the preservation of a free govern- 
ment. 

Sam Houston. 



Cultivated mind is the guardian 
genius of democracy. ... It is 
the only dictator that freemen ac- 
knowledge and the only security that 
freemen desire. 

President Mirabeau B. Lamar. 



It is only out of the contest of facts 
and brains that the right can ever be 
evolved— only on the anvil of discus- 
sion can the spark of truth, be struck 
out. 

Joseph H. Choate. 



13. of J^ 
JUL 1 



INTRODUCTION 

The subject for debate in the University Interscholastic 
League for 1915-19 is: Resolved, That a constitutional tax of one 
mill, equitably apportioned, should be levied for the support 
of the state institutions of higher education in Texas, and that 
supplementary appro pi'iations by the Legislature should be pro- 
hibited. By a "mill tax" is meant a tax of one mill on every 
dollar of assessed property in the State, or ten cents on every 
one hundred dollars. By "constitutional tax" is meant an 
amendment to the State constitution fixing such a tax, as op- 
posed to a statutory tax which might be adopted by legislative 
enactment. The term "state institutions of higher aducation" 
includes the University of Texas, the Agricultural and Mechan- 
ical College, the College of Industrial Arts, the four State nor- 
mals for white teachers, and the Prairie View Normal for 
Negroes. 

Under the present system of support, the boards of directors 
of the different schools submit estimates of the needs of their 
institutions to the Legislature at its regular biennial session, and 
the latter makes appropriations therefor covering the two years 
next succeeding. In addition to the biennial appropriation, the 
University receives about .$160,000 each year from its perma- 
nent endowment fund established through grants of land by the 
founders of the State. The Agricultural and Mechanical Col- 
lege receives from the United States Government annually 
about $60,000, and from the State government several thousand 
dollars from the operation of the Pure Feed Control Law. 

Twenty-three states have a fixed tax for the support of their 
institutions of higher education. Some of these states provide 
for the tax in their state constitutions, while in others the tax 
is by legislative enactment. In practically all states having a 
special tax, the revenue derived therefrom is supplemented by 
special appropriations by the Legislature. The tax varies from 
a small fraction of a mill in some states to a mill in Illinois. 
In some states the tax is applied to the support of only the State 
University, while in others it applies to all of the higher schools, 
including the State normals. In most states the Legislature 



4 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

appropriates from the general revenue a sum which is consid- 
ered necessary for the needs of the higher institutions. A few, 
including Texas, California and Michigan, have a permanent 
land endowment which supplements the annual income. 

Dissatisfaction Math the existing status of financial support 
for our State institutions of higher education has long been felt 
by leading educators and statesmen. This has been due in part 
to the inadequacy of the legislative appropriations, and in part 
to the feeling that this method of support is harmful in other 
ways which could be remedied by a change in method. Some 
have proposed a constitutional amendment fixing a definite tax 
for the special schools; some have favored instead a legislative 
measure establishing the tax or, as still others have proposed, 
setting aside a certain per cent, of the total State revenue for the 
higher State schools; while yet another remedy advanced has 
been the idea of a permanent fund created by the issuance of 
bonds. 

THE ISSUES INVOLVED 

It should be borne in mind that the question to be debated is 
not a question of liberal or meager support for the schools under 
consideration, but simply a question of the best method of pro- 
viding the necessary support. The affirmative will assume, and 
the negative will readily admit, that Texas is below even the 
average of states of equal population and wealth, in the matter 
of financial support given her State schools. The issues involved, 
therefore, are : (1) Will the proposed plan provide more liberal 
support than the present method? (2; Are there other evils 
connected with the present method which the proposed plan 
would remedy? (3) Is the proposed plan better than any other 
that could be advanced? 

THE CASE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE 

In proposing a constitutional tax of one mill for the support 
of our State institutions of higher learning, the affirmative main- 
tains : 

(1) That under the existing^ plan of biennial appropriations 
(a) AH of the State's higher schools are suffering from lack of 
sufficient funds to meet their growing needs, (b) The governing 
boards cannot formulate definite policies for their respective 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 5 

schools covering a number of years, (c) The schools are sub- 
jected to undue political influence which is harmful, (d) Jeal- 
ousies and hurtful rivalries among the different institutions re- 
sult from the biennial scramble for appropriations. 

(2) That a constitutional tax of one mill will (a) render 
adequate financial aid, (b) provide an automatic means of defi- 
nite and increasing support to meet the increasing demands of 
the schools from year to year, (c) remove the schools from 
politics, (d) place them upon a dignified basis of independence 
that will remove existing causes of hurtful rivalry. 

(3) The affirmative further maintains that a tax of one mill, 
the revenue therefrom growing with the growth of the State, 
will be adequate for the support of our institutions of higher 
learning; that it should be a constitutional provision, and not 
be subject to change or repeal through legislative action; that 
by the exercise of due foresight unforseen contingencies or 
losses in the administration of the school's funds can be pro- 
vided against ; and that the prohibition of supplementary legis- 
lative appropriations will conduce to a more business-like man- 
agement of the schools and to the elimination of the politics and 
harmful rivalries that result from dependence, whether in whole 
or in part, upon legislative appropriations. 

The foregoing outlined arguments for the affirmative are not 
further elaborated here because most of the evidence presented 
in subsequent pages of this bulletin bear upon the affirmative 
side, in one way or another. In fact, there is very little printed 
matter supporting directly the negative side. For that reason 
the following outlined argument for the negative is somewhat 
fuller than that given for the affirmative. But it should be 
understood that the editor has not attempted fully to outline 
either side; that the outlines are intended to be suggestive only; 
and that students are expected to organize and develop the ar- 
guments for themselves. 

THE CASE FOR THE NEGATIVE 

The negative will readily admit the need of more liberal 
financial support for the State's higher educational institutions. 
It may also be admitted that, under existing conditions, these 
.schools are sometimes subjected to unnecessary and hurtful rival- 



6 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

ries and political influences. However, among other and better 
plans for meeting the situation than that proposed by the affirm- 
ative are : 

(1) Remove bj^ constitutional amendment the present pro- 
hibition upon the Legislature from levying taxes or making ap- 
propriations for the erection of buildings for the State Uni- 
versity, and enact a statutory law levying a special tax for the 
support of all the schools for higher education. 

(2) Adopt a constitutional tax of two-thirds of a mill, say, 
and leave the Legislature free to make supplementary appro- 
priations, 

(3) Issue bonds for the creation of a permanent fund for the 
different institutions, such fund to be supplemented by biennial 
legislative appropriations. 

In weighing the advantages of any one or all of these meas- 
ures over the one advanced by the affirmative, let us consider 
the objections to the affirmative proposition. First and funda- 
mentally, it is too rigid. It does not admit of a possible con- 
tingency when the schools M^ould have need of additional as- 
sistance which they could not obtain on account of the pro- 
hibition of appropriations by the Legislature. Such a contin- 
gency might be due to a fire, a shrinking in taxable value on 
account of crop failures, financial panic or other cause, or an 
unlooked-for increase in attendance at the different schools. It 
has been found expedient to increase the tax rate for general 
revenues from time to time ; then why might it not be necessary 
to do the same for the tax rate for higher education ? 

The experience of other states does not argue either the neces- 
sity for or the advisability of so rigid a measure. This rigidity 
could not be easily removed by constitutional amendment, for 
experience shows that, no matter how obviously desirable a con- 
stitutional change may be, it is next to impossible to get the 
people to adopt it, especially if it would make possible an 
increase in the expenses of government. ' 

This absolute removal of the schools from financial dependence 
upon the Legislature is also undemocratic, and might easily lead 
to the growth of aristocratic or ultra-conservative tendencies 
in the schools. While it is admitted that they should not be 
entirely dependent upon any particular legislature for sup- 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 7 

port, yet to remove them altogether from any dependence upon 
the body which represents the people, would be equally bad. 
A middle ground is the best, such as would obtain as to either 
of the plans proposed by the negative. 

The plan of issuing bonds for the creation of a permanent 
fund for the different institutions, such fund to be supplemented 
by the biennial appropriations, might be advanced as an alter- 
native measure. This plan has from time to time received the 
attention and support of educators and members of the Legis- 
lature and of the governing boards of the different institutions. 
A strong point in favor of bond issues is that this would dis- 
tribute the cost of education more equitably, since a larger share 
of such cost would fall upon succeeding generations who will 
reap the benefits of educating the present generation. If cities 
and counties may issue bon.ds for school purposes, why not the 
Legislature, representing the whole State, issue bonds for the 
support of the special State schools? Is not one as democratic, 
as just, and as desirable as the other? The chief point against 
such a proposition is the people's inherent prejudice against the 
issuance of bonds. But the people are also strongly opposed to 
any increase in the tax rate, and the constitutional amendment 
proposed by the affirmative would probably be as difficult to pass 
as would an amendment authorizing and instructing the Legis- 
lature to issue bonds for the creation of a permanent fund for the 
purpose under consideration. • 

Either of the plans .suggested by the negative would render 
adequate financial aid without leading to extravagance; would 
be sufficiently automatic and definite to enable the school au- 
thorities to pursue consistent plans through a period of years; 
M'ould remove the schools from politics so far as that is de- 
sirable : would lessen materially the strife and jealousies among 
the different institutions caused by the biennial scramble for ap- 
propriations ; and would not be attended by the evils which must 
be expected from the rigid and undemocratic plan of the affirma- 
tive. 



TEXAS TAX RATE AND TAX VALUATION FROM 1904 TO 1911 




'(Taken From the 


Texas Almanac 


for 1914.) 


Year 


Advalorum tax 


School tax 


Valuation 


1904 


16% cents 


18 cents 


$1,082,779,775 


1905 


16% cents 


18 cents 


1,139,022,730 


1906 


20 cents 


18 cents 


1,221,159,869 


1907 


12% cents 


20 cents 


1,635,297,115 


1908 


6% cents 


12% cents 


2,174,122,480 


1909 


5 cents 


16% cents 


2,309,803,626 


1910 


4 cents 


16% cents 


2,391,109,795 


1911 


121/2 cents 


16% cents 


2,515,594,636 


1912 


10 cents 


16% cents 


2,532,710,050 


1913 


, 28 cents 


17 cents 


2,632,000,000 


1914 


121/2 cents 


20 cents 


2,743,000,000 



ANNUAL ENROLLMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND THE 
A. AND M. COLLEGE 

The enrollment of the University for the years of its existence 
follows : 



1883- 


-8 


1884- 


-8 


1885 


-8 


1886 


-8 


1887 


-8 


1888- 


-8 


1889- 


-9 


1890- 


-9 


1891 9 


1892- 


-9 


1893- 


9 


1894 


-9 


1895- 


-9 


1896 


-9 


1897 


-9 


1898 


-9 



21 
09 
99 

45 
50 
78 
09 
83 
88 
53 
82 
30 
30 
51 
00 
86 



1899-00 

1900-01 

1901-02 

1902-03 

1903-04 

1904-05 1 

1905-06 1 

1906-07 2 

1907-08 2 

1908-09 2, 

1909-10 2 

1910-11 2 

1911-12 2 

1912-13 3 

1913-14 3 

1914-15 3 



,041 
121 
,291 
348 
,353 
,486 
,991 
273 
462 
573 
701 
758 
832 
334 
501 
898 



Constituiiomil Tax for Higher Education 



The following is the enrollment at the A. and M. College for 
the years of its existence : 



1876 


-7 


1877 


-7 


1878 


-7 


1879 


-8 


1880 


-8 


1881 


-8 


1882 


-8 


1883- 


-8 


1884 


-8 


1885 


-8 


1886- 


-8 


1887- 


-8 


1888 


-8 


1889 


-9 


1890- 


-9 


1891- 


■9 


1892- 


-9 


1893- 


9 


1894- 


9 


1895- 


9 



106 
331 
248 
144 
127 
2oS 
228 
108 
112 
170 
176 
214 
207 
279 
318 
331 
293 
313 
372 
354 



1896-97 311 

1897-98 337 

1898-99 356 

1899-00 396 

1900-01 382 

1901-02 407 

1902-03 396 

1903-04 378 

1904-05 414 

1905-06 416 

1906-07 515 

1907-08 625 

1908-09 644 

1909-10 838 

1910-11 1,057 

1911-12 1,126 

1912-13 1,129 

1913-14 1,040 

1914-15 1,218. 



THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



Statement of Income from Permanent Fund and Appropriations 
made by the Legislature from 1885-6 to 1915, inclusive. 







Int. on 






Tear 


Laud Leases 


Land Sale Loans 


Int. on Bonds 


Appropriations 


1885-86 


$ 1,773.80 
3,524.96 


$ 11,000.00 
9,238.20 


$ 31,445.38 
31,941.38 




1886-87 




1887-88 .__ 


3,686.28 


4,633.11 


33,267.00 




1888-89.- 


4,691.05 


3,432.73 


33,267.00 




188^90 


4,767.10 


10,865.88 


33,267.00 


$ 25,000.00 


1890-91 


15,871.80 


4,114.07 


33,768.00 


25,000.00 


1891-92 


16,063.95 


3,216.04 


34,318.60 


62,000.00 


1892-03 


8,089.20 


2,624.06 


31,728.60 


32,000.00 


1893-94 


22,792.74 


5,255.89 


58,606.10 


57,200.00 


1894-95 


11,692.80 


3,087.10 


31,728.60 


38,700.00 


1895-96 


12,944.66 


2,938.09 


31,728.60 


63,500.00 


1896-97- 


40,295.18 


3,032.28 


31,828.60 


61,000.00 


1897-98 


43,895..36 


2,014.95 


31,878.60 


71,000.00 


1898-99 


54,670.74 


2,547.02 


31,928.50 


68,000.00 


1899-00 


39,814.65 


2,621.34 


31,895.00 


75,000.00 


1900-01 


57,161.62 


2,363.87 


31,895.00 


75,000.00 


1900^1 


Six months' appro 


priation — change i 


n fiscal year 


105,000.00 


1901-02 


49,664.72 


2,393.27 


31,895.00 


165,000.00 


1902-03 


79,204.44 


2,611.80 


31,895.00 


90,000.00 


1903-04 


71,531.09 


2,929.11 


31,665.00 


173,006.66 


1904-05 


77,338.90 


2,763.68 


30,905.00 


173,006.66 


1905-06 


100,140. .58 


2,955.18 


30,985.00 


130,250.00 


1906-07 


106,357.83 


2,656.98 


25,873.25 


110,250.00 


1907-08 


102,919.46 


2,453.73 


26,047.55 


155,500.00 


1908-09 


111,924.53 


2,201.51 


26,165.00 


155,000.00 


1909-10 


100,941.23 


2,250.00 


28,148.33 


295,000.00 


1910^11 


121, 628. '^9 


2,163.06 


20,517.50 


295,000.00 


1911-12 


131,000.00 


1,185.16 


21,586.00 


268,455.00 


1912-13 


140,000.00 


2,000.00 


21,586.00 


400,000.00 


1913-14 


157,694.39 


1,852.43 


21,586.00 


658,300.00 


1914-15- 




Emerge 


ncy appropriation 


352,745.89 


1915-16 _ - 








711,682.16 


1916-17 








711,682.16 











Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 



11 



LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE HIGHER SCHOOLS FROM 

1903 TO 1915. 



A gi'icultural and Mechanical College. 



1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 



1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 



-04 $139,000.00 

-05 71,000.00 

■06 94,485.00 

-07 88,085.00 

-08 177,285.00 

-09 150,085.00 



1909-10 112,750.00 

1910-11 96,750.00 

1911-12 368,350.00 

1912-13 196,100.00 

1913-14 207,300.00 

1914-15 317,200.00 



College of Industrial Arts. 



-04 $ 53,483.00 

-05 29,350.00 

-06 39,550.00 

■07 29,500.00 

■08 100,775.00 

-09 33,775.00 



1909-10 48,075.00 

1910-11 89,575.00 

1911-12 121,300.00 

1912-13 47,550.00 

1913-14 92,982.00 

1914-15 85,450.00 



Sam Houston Normal School. 



1903-04 $ 40,100.00 

1904-05 39,500.00 

1905-06 39,500.00 

1906-07 39,500.00 

1907-08 42,500.00 

1908-09 42,500.00 



1909-10 58,000.00 

1910-11 53,000.00 

1911-12 51,000.00 

1912-13 72,000.00 

1913-14 71,550.00 

1914-15 71,700.00 



North Texas State Normal. 



1903-04 $ 80,250.00 

1904-05 40,250.00 

1905-06 50,250.00 

1906-07 40,250.00 

1907-08 42,250.00 

1908-09 42,250.00 



1909-10 75,000.00 

1910-11 33,000.00 

1911-12 92,000.00 

1912-13 42,000.00 

1913-14 121,800.00 

1914-15 65,700.00 



Southwest Texas Normal School. 



1903-04 $ 37,831.00 

1904-05 21,300.00 

1905-06 50,500.00 

1906-07 39,500.00 

1907-08 51,500.00 

1908-09 42,500.00 



1909-10 49,500.00 

1910-11 33,000.00 

1911-12 68,600.00 

1912-13 41,000.00 

1913-14 74,800.00 

1914-15 61,000.00 



West Texas Normal School. 

1911-12 $ 59,945.00 I 1913-14 62,100.00 

1912-13 43,150.00 ' 1914-15 50,600.00 

Prairie View Normal School. 



1903-04 $ 32,500.00 

1904-05 27,500.00 

1905-06 28,300.00 

1906-07 25,300.00 

1907-08 48,850.00 

1908-09 23,350.00 



1309-10 22,975.00 

1910-11 i6,iao.oo 

1911-12 .. 48,600.00 

1912-13 26,100.00 

1913-14 44,250.00 

1914-15 44,000.00 



Extract from letter of ex-Governor 0. 
News, , 1914. 



B. Colquitt to Dallas 



12 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

DEFICIENCIES 

"In addition to the appropriations above quoted for the Col- 
quitt administration of four years, deficiencies were granted for 
the Agricultural and Mechanical College, the College of Indus- 
trial Arts for Women and the normal schools as follows : 

Agricultural and Mechanical College $ 87,265.00 

To rebuild main building 200,000.00 

To rebuild mess liall 100,000.00 

Deficiency to complete mess hall 12,539.00 

Deficiency to complete main building 22,500.00 

Prairie View Normal. 40,502.99 

Sam Houston Normal. . 12,000.00 

San Marcos Normal 7,500.00 

College of Industrial Arts 7,071.00 

Total $ 489,457.99 

Total of general appropriation $4,166,482.19 

Total of deficiencies 489,457.99 

Grand total $4,655,940.18 

"This shows a grand total of expenditures out of the general 
revenue for the support, maintenance and erection of buildings 
for the educational institutions above mentioned for the four 
years of the Colquitt administration of $4,655,940.18, which is 
$558,797.86 in excess of the total amount expended for the 
eight years of the Lanham and Campbell administrations. This 
shows an increase of expenditure by my administration over the 
preceding administrations for these institutions of more than 
100 per cent. 

URGED 10 CENT TAX 

"In my message to the Legislature on education, wherein I 
urge revision of the educational article of the constitution so as 
to permit of a broader system of public instruction and a more 
efficient and certain method of supplying revenues for the Uni- 
versity, Agricultural and Mechanical College, the normal schools 
and the College of Industrial Arts, it was proposed that a 
tax rate not to exceed 10 cents on the one hundred dollars of 
valuation might be levied by the Legislature for the maintenance 
and support of these educational institutions of the State. The 
friends of the University, Agricultural and Mechanical College, 
the normal schools and the College of Industrial Arts, agreed 
that this tax rate would be a liberal allowance for those institu- 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 13 

tions; but, as a matter of fact, the sums appropriated, unless 
some of them had been vetoed, could not have been paid, after 
deducting the cost of assessing, collecting, etc., out of a 10 cent 
tax rate," 

SPECIAL TAX MEASURES BEFORE THE TEXAS LEG- 
ISLATURE OF 1911 

In 1911 at the regular session of the Thirty-second Legisla- 
ture, two measures looking to a betterment of the status of the 
University of Texas and the Agricultural and Mechanical Col- 
lege were introduced. One was House Joint Resolution No. 13, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution, providing for the 
levy of a special tax of 4.4 cents on the $100 of taxable prop- 
erty for the support of the University and the A. and M. College. 
This bill, after having passed to a third reading, finally died 
on the Speaker's table. 

Representative Donnegan, in stating his reasons for voting 
against the resolution, said: "I vote against submitting the 
higher education tax amendment to the Constitution because it 
limits within unreasonable limits the power of the Legislature 
to provide for these institutions." (House Journal, 32d. Leg- 
islature, Regular Session of 1911, p. 822.) 

The other measure before the Thirty-second Legislature was a 
l)ill introduced in the regular session of 1911, "Providing for 
the creation and establishment of a special fund for the Uni- 
versity of Texas and the A. and M. College by providing that a 
eertain part of the advalorum tax rate should be levied and col- 
lected for the institutions mentioned. This was a legislative 
measure, not a constitutional amendment. The Attorney Gen- 
eral at the time ruled that such a law would be constitutional, 
and this bill had the support of the Board of Regents of the 
University and the Board of Directors of the A. and M. College. 
As finally amended, the bill provided for a rate of 3.7 for the 
University and of 1.7 for the A. and M. College, It was passed 
by the House, but died in the Senate. 

Representative Campbell gave as his reason for voting against 
the bill the following: "The constitutional amendment pro- 
posed in House Joint Resolution No. 13 (see above) is to be 



14 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

preferred. This bill would add too much to the tax rate of the 
present administration. ' ' 

The following newspaper editorials were written in December, 
1910 and January, 1911, and were occasioned by the agitation 
of the two measures mentioned above : 

Hous'ion CMromcle. — "To establish a university in Texas 
which should rank with the best in the nation was the dream of 
the men who made Texas possible, and upon the men of this 
generation rests the obligation to bring to a realization that 
cherished purpose. * * * The appropriations made for the 
educational institutions of Texas, compared with those of other 
states, have always been insignificant, and, in fact, contemptible. 
This is plain talk, but it is the unvarnished truth." — (Recent 
Editorial, Houston Chronicle.) 

Houston Post. — "Of course, the question of imminent con- 
cern is more money. That means increased taxation, for there 
is no other way to get the money. As the people are willing to 
supply the money, then let it be done by special taxation so 
that the college revenues may not be only abundant, but stable 
and dependable. * * * The cause of educational progress 
demands more liberal support of the State Colleges. We ought 
not to be satisfied with a University that is second to that of any 
institution in the country." 

Brdwmwood Bulletin. — "The Bulletin has no sympathy for 
the sentiment, or the lack of sentiment, that would allow our 
State institutions to suffer for the lack of funds on which to 
operate on the broad basis that should characterize everything 
done in Texas. * * * It is certainly wrong to require the 
regents of a school to appear in Austin at every session of the 
Legislature in the capacity of lobbyists that the school may 
get a sufficient ' appropriation ' on which to exist. * * * With 
a direct tax the schools would be largely removed from politics 
and from the uncertainty always attending a school that exists 
on appropriations." 

Austin Statesman. — "The unanimity with which the press 
of the State has endorsed the proposition of a special tax for the 
support of higher education in Texas is another healthy re- 
minder of the civic awakening that has taken place in this 
State. * * * No institution in the State can be made of 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 15 

greater service to the cause of development than the University 
of Texas." 

Dallas News. — ''A special tax would afford the University 
an income whose amount it • could calculate pretty accu- 
rately, and thus enable the Regents to plan its development 
in a way that is impossible so long as they are left dependent 
upon the generosity of succeeding Legislatures. Furthermore, 
its income would increase with the growth of the State and 
as its own duties and services must increase with the growth of 
the State, a correspondence between needs and means would 
be maintained automatically and with certainty. Although the 
University needs more than it has been accustomed to getting, 
this change in the method of supporting need not necessarih' en- 
tail an additional demand upon the people of the State, since 
the general revenue fund would be relieved of the demands 
which the University makes upon it." 

President S. P. Brooks of Baylor University made the fol- 
lowing statement in regard to the proposed statutory tax bill 
introduced in the 1911 Legislature : 

*'The good citizenship of the State should rise and demand 
a tax. large enough to support the University in due form and 
vigorous growth. It is believed that wise legislators will heed 
the call — not wise to hold an ear to the ground, but wise in 
prophetic thinking and planning for the good of the people 
whom they have sworn to serve. * * * The tax will give 
assurance for the future. Executives can wisely plan for 
•growth. Things will grow regularly and not by spasms. The 
cost to the people will not be enough to feel it ; and if it were 
enough it would be all the better. We have little sympathy 
or interest in that which costs us little or nothing." 

Ex-Governor Joseph D. Sayers: 

"In my message to the Legislature in January, 1903, I ex- 
pressed myself in favor of a levy of a special tax for the sup- 
port and maintenance of the State University. I have not ex- 
amined into the constitutionality of the bill now pending (1911), 
but assuming that it is within the power of the Legisla- 
ture to enact such a measure, I do not hesitate to express myself 
most heartily in its favor." 

The University of Texas issued a bulletin urging the adop- 



16 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

tion of the special tax proposed in the Legislature of 1911. 
The following excerpts, and also the foregoing editorials, have 
been taken from this bulletin, 

STATEMENTS OP FAMOUS EDUCATORS. 

President Brown Ayres, State University of Tennessee. — "I 
regard the support of the State University by means of a special 
tax as the ideal method of providing for such institutions. A 
great university is the result of a steadily pursued policy for a 
number of years, and such a policy is impossible unless the 
support of the university is positively assured. ' ' 

Chancellor S. Avery, State University of Nebraska. — "Ne- 
braska assesses its property at one-fifth of the supposed actual 
valuation. We have a mill-tax for the support of the University 
which brings us in about $400,000 a year. If this sum were 
sufficient for both maintenance and building we should have 
practically no legislative worries. * * * a definite tax to 
a State university is somewhat comparable with an endowment 
for a private institution. Depending on legislative appropria- 
tions out of a general state fund is like maintaining a private 
school on private donations." 

President Edmund J. James, University of Illinois. — "It 
seems to me that every thoughtful man who will give time to the 
consideration of the question must agree that if a state decides 
finally upon the establishment of a higher institution of learning 
such as the University, it ought to provide in some permanent 
way for its support and not make it dependent on the more or 
less accidental temper or feelings of successive legislatures." 

President James B. Angell, University of Michigan. — "The 
support of the University by the mill-tax is unquestionably 
much the best method for the University and the State. 
* * * If a great university is to prosper, it must be enabled 
to follow some permanent policy or plan, and therefore to know 
that it has some permanent support." 

President Benjamin Ide Wheeler, University of California. — 
"I am very glad to know that Texas is considering the provision 
of a special tax for the support of the University. That is really 
the only w^ay in which a university can be properly supported. 
You must know well in advance what you have to expect in order 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education IT 

that a university should be maintained in that continuity and 
dignity which its name implies. Furtherfmore, I think it is 
fair that a university should share in the growth and prosperity 
of the State." 

President A. R. Hill, University of Missouri. — "Such a tax 
is the most democratic method of support for a public institu- 
tion. It puts its income upon a calculable and permanent basis, 
and provides for growth of the institution in proportion to the 
growth of the State. It is the most economical and satisfactory 
and guarded method of support that can well be imagined. All 
the State universities in America that are recognized as really 
great are supported in this way, with the exception of Illinois^ 
which is of recent development." 

President Emeritus, Charles W. Eliot, Harvard University. — 
"I am glad to hear that the Regents of the University of Texas 
propose to ask the Legislature to provide a special tax for the 
support of the University, in place of appropriations which have 
to be proposed and discussed at every recurrent assembling of 
the Legislature. Such a special tax would naturally be fixed 
at some specific fraction of the income of the State, or at so 
many mills on a dollar of the valuation of the property in the 
State; and would therefore work automatically without need 
of recurrence to the Legislatures, and would therefore rise with 
the increasing income or total valuation of the State. * * * 
In a progressive State like Texas, which still possesses great 
areas of unoccupied land and many natural resources unde- 
veloped, the Legislature can do nothing of greater advantage to 
the State than to give its University a secure, continuous, rismgj 
and practical income." 

ARE OUR SCHOOLS ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED? 

(Extract from pamphlet issued by the Hogg Organization on 
"The State Institutions of Higher Education in Texas.") 

An examination of the following table, giving information 
with respect to State Normal Schools in the United States, will 
indicate that Texas falls far short of the average state in the 
provision for these schools: 



18 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

United 

States. Texas. 

Total No. of State Normal chools 19 6 4 

Total No. of students, regular session 79,546 2,250 

Total No. of instructors 4,814 88 

Average No. of pupils per instructor 16.6 25.6 

Average annual cost of maintenance per school 

to the State $71,840 $44,625 

Average value of laboratories for each school. . $23,950 $8,750 
Average value of buildings for each school. . . .$183,300 $125,000 

The State of Texas expends less per capita on the enrollment 
in her normal schools for the training of teachers than the 
average state of the Union, while it falls far below that of the 
average progressive western state. Some of the states provide 
a part of the living expenses of the students. The teachers who 
attend the summer sessions of the four normal schools in Texas 
spend as much money for board, tuition, and other expenses 
as the State spends on these schools for the entire year. 

An examination of the above table further proves that the 
average state normal school is investing more money in the con- 
struction of buildings than the average state normal school in 
Texas, all of which means that their buildings are larger, more 
anodern in architecture and better equipped. The administration 
^buildings in a very few of the normal schools of other states cost 
less than $100,000 each, while the science buildings, library and 
^other buildings cost from $25,000 to $100,000 each. It should 
•be the settled policy of our State to give larger appropriations 
for the construction of modern, convenient and sanitary build- 
ings that are planned by competent architects to meet the needs 
of these schools for a long period of time, and not merely to meet 
the immediate demands. 

An examination of the official reports of State Superintendents 
and of the United States Commissioner of Education indicates 
clearly that the standards of the Texas normal schools fall below 
the standards that prevail in the leading normal schools of the 
country. Recently, the State Normal School Board of Regents 
increased both the entrance and graduation requirements for the 
Texas normal schools. If we are to keep up with the progress 
of other states, as above indicated, the standards must be raised 
further. To meet these requirements, additional revenues will 
be necessary. 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 19 

WHY NOT ISSUE BONDS INSTEAD OF A CONSTITUTIONAL TAX? 

Extract from pamphlet by A. Caswell Ellis, on the Relation 

of Higher Education to the Economic 

Development of the State. 

There is not a university in the South that does not need 
at once from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 for lands, buildings and 
equipment. As this equipment for education is absolutely es- 
sential' to the economic development of the State, and as it is 
impossible to secure these large sums suddenly out of general 
taxation, I see but one solution to our problem of higher edu- 
cation. "We must issue bonds for higher education. This is 
no new and untried scheme. We issue bonds to build rail- 
roads and bridges, to put in waterworks and lighting systems 
and to develop our mineral resources. Why should the State 
not issue bonds to develop its greatest and most productive re- 
source, its human resource? The educated human mind is the 
greatest producing agency in the world, without which climate, 
fertile soil and mineral deposits are but so much useless mate- 
rial. We already issue bonds for elementary education. It 
is, therefore, all the more demanded that we issue bonds to de- 
velop our higher education in order to train leaders to direct 
and teachers to teach the elementary schools, so that the enor- 
mous sums spent on elementary schools shall not be longer 
wasted on unwise plans and un-economical methods. 

EXTRACT FROM FAREWELL ADDRESS OF FORMER PRESIDENT MEZES 

TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS, ON '^THE FUTURE OP 

THE university/' DEC. 16, 1914. 

If the University is to serve Texas as it should, its income 
must be greatly increased — in fact, more than doubled. A mod- 
ern state university cannot operate efficiently on less than two 
millions a year; and, in a huge state like Texas, it should, in 
the near future, be provided with three millions annually. 
Three universities in states much smaller are expending nearly 
the latter sum today, to the great benefit of their constituencies. 

In addition, the following measures of legislation would, I 
believe, be very helpful to the University in the performance of 
its duties of service, and correspondingly^ helpful to the State 
as a whole: (1) a statutory'- measure levying a special tax for the 



20 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

support of the institution; (2) an amendment repealing the 
portion of Section 14 of Article VII, of the Constitution pro- 
hibiting appropriations of tax levies for the erection of Uni- 
versity buildings; and (3) a statutory measure, if the Constitu- 
tion permits that method, authorizing the issuance of bonds,, 
with interest and sinking fund payable out of the available 
University fund, for the construction of buildings and the pur- 
chase of additional grounds to enlarge the campus. 

The special tax has been so often and fully discussed that 
little need be said here. It costs no more to support the Uni- 
versity out of the proceeds of a special tax than out of biennial 
appropriations. The chief advantages of the tax are two: (1) 
the Eegents will know what they can depend upon in the mat- 
ter of support, and can lay their plans accordingly in a far- 
sighted and business-like way; (2) the University will be with- 
drawn further from the disturbing and perilous contact with 
politics into which the method of biennial appropriations un- 
avoidably draws it. 

NEED FOR A SPECIAL TAX 

(Excerpt from Fifteenth Biennial Report of the Board of 
Eegents, University of Texas.) 

Biennial Appropriations Unsafe. — It is generally agreed that 
the plan of relying on appropriations from the general revenue, 
made biennially, is open to grave objections. A university, of 
all institutions, should be managed reasonably and prudently, 
on the basis of plans deliberately decided upon, providing for 
an orderly development stretching over a series of years. Such 
conduct of affairs is impossible under the system of biennial 
appropriations. What will be done by Legislatures and Gov- 
ernors two, four and six years in the future cannot possibly be 
foreseen. This situation compels the Regents to pursue a 
"hand to mouth" policy, inconsistent with the interests of the 
University, and destructive either of prudent or economical 
management. 

The University Out of Politics. — The entanglement of the Uni- 
versity in factional polities constitutes, if possible, a graver ob- 
jection to the system of biennial appropriations for its mainte- 
nance. The officers of the University should not be called upon 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 21 

to lobby, however important the end to be attained or unexcep- 
tionable the methods employed. Men engaged in educational 
service should be free to devote their best energies to their high 
functions. Above all, the University itself should be so sup- 
ported as to be wholly independent of partisan caprice. 

A Statutory Tax, — The plan of supporting the University 
from the proceeds of a special statutory tax has been adopted 
by practically all the strongest State universities of the country, 
and we recommend that the present Legislature employ this 
method of providing for the support of the University of Texas. 

Rate of University Tax. — In determining the rate of such a 
special tax, two factors are to be borne in mind, the assessed valu- 
ation, and the reduction for cost of collection and unpaid taxes. 
For the current fisealyear the State's assessed valuation amounts 
to $2,532,710.50. The estimates of the Comptroller, based upon 
the experience of many years, is that only 80 per cent of any tax 
levy reaches the State Treasury. Bearing these two facts in 
mind, the rate that will produce the average of the amounts rec- 
ommended for the two years is 3.4 cents on the $100 of assessed 
values. The gross yield of the tax would be $861,121.41. De- 
ducting 20 per cent for cost of collection and unpaid taxes, 
the net yield would be $688,897.13. The assessed values could 
not be expected to increase sufficiently to provide the sum rec- 
ommended for the second year; the values are lower this year 
than last. But the Regents would have the advantage of know- 
ing what to expect for that and subsequent years. 

University Tax in Other States. — The following table, taken 
by permission, from a bulletin of the Hogg Organization, will 
show that the rate mentioned is low in comparison with that 
of other State universities, below which the University should 
not stand: 

Additional 
Appropriations 
bv Legislatures. 
i 301,786.00 
127,869.00 

74,000.00 
1,060,377.00 
110,000.00 
222,817.00 
444,135.00 
334,426.00 



Institution. 


Rate. 


California 


3 


Colorado 


8 


Illinois 


• 10 


Michigan 


4.75 


Minnesota 


2.30 


Nebraska 


10 


North Dakota 


5.33 + 


Wiconsin 


2.85 + 


Average 


5.78 



22 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

Avoiding Mistakes of Other States. — It will be noted that the 
rates shown in the tables have proved too low in the States 
enumerated, with the exception of Illinois. All the other Uni- 
versities mentioned have had to appeal biennially to the State 
Legislatures for supplementary appropriations, which they have 
received in the amounts shown in the table. Such a situation 
is unfortunate, and should not be allowed to exist in Texas. 
The removal of the State University from the scramble for ap- 
propriations is one of the main purposes of a special tax, and 
this purpose is in large measure defeated in the States men- 
tioned. The mistake of these other States should not be re- 
peated in Texas. It can be avoided by means of the moderate 
tax mentioned. With any rate lower than 3.3 cents, the num- 
ber of students in attendance by 1915 will require an appeaj 
to the Thirty-fourth Legislature for supplementary appropria- 
tions or for an increase in the tax rate. We believe that the 
rate recommended is a small price to pay for a permanent re- 
moval of the University from the domain of political contention. 

Excerpt from "The Organization and Administration of a 

State's Institutions of Higher Education, '^ by Arthur 

Lefevre. 

A measure of vital importance must be framed to secure a 
state tax for the regular support of the State institutions of 
higher education and the four State normal schools. Some of 
the main benefits of such a measure would be lost if the law 
establishing the tax did not apportion the proceeds in three fixed 
parts to the three higher institutions, and a distinct part for 
the support of the four State normal schools. The latter ought 
to be administered as one fund by the State Normal Board of 
Regents, according to the varying needs of the respective normal 
schools. 

The problem thus presented cannot be properly solved unless 
the 'four governing boards concerned accept some well delib- 
erated plan, formulated in a carefully prepared bill, and unite 
in harmonious support of that bill. Or, if it be decided that an 
amendment to the Constitution is necessary, a corresponding 
joint resolution to submit the constitutional amendment should 
be prepared and supported. 

The total amount that must be supplied from the revenues of 
the State in order that Texas may take a place among the states 



Ccmstituticmal Tax for Higher Education 23 

that have undertaken to secure efficient services from their in- 
stitutions of higher education, has been reliably ascertained from 
a study of the financial basis of such institution in all of those 
states. It is also shown in that study that the proceeds of a 
tax of eight-tenths of a mill, or 8 cents on $100, on the assess- 
ment of 1911 for Texas, would not fall far short of the requisite 
sum — $2,000,000. Such a tax, with wise administration, would 
enable the State of Texas to secure the present average services 
enjoyed in the other states. 

There may be many Texans w'ho would not be permanently 
satisfied by securing only average educational and scientific 
services from their institutions ; but it would be prudent to post- 
pone any undertaking looking toward leadership, until appro- 
priate measures for so high an enterprise can be adopted in the 
light of experience with an average status. 

A tax of one mill (10 cents on $100) is the levy necessary to 
put and keep all the institutions referred to on a basis of average 
efficiency. If the people of Texas desire to enlarge and 
strengthen their educational institutions, so as to secure for them- 
selves such services as are enjoyed in the states whose social and 
industrial interests are now profiting by those advantages, they 
must undoubtedly expend at least the amount here indicated. 

The obligation upon the governing boards to agree to a fixed 
partitionment of the tax, is peremptory. There is no other way 
to avoid annual struggles that would be wretchedly injurious. 
On the other hand, no vital mistake could be made in fixing the 
division. Inasmuch as the total amount is the minimum suffi- 
cient to accomplish its purpose, it is certain that no division 
would apportion to any one of the three institutions more than 
it could use to the public advantage. If to any one should be 
allotted a portion that proved insufficient for enterprises which 
the Legislature desired to be continued or developed, an addi- 
tional appropriation would be made for that institution. It 
is certain that every institution will from time to time have to 
present some special need to the Legislature. The tax proposed 
would provide for ordinary expenditures for building, but times 
must come when some large necessity for additional ground, or 
for some extraordinary building, would require recourse to the 
Legislature. Such is the proper theory of a tax for regular 



24 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

maintenance and support. The Legislature ought to retain a 
regulative power, to be exercised in decisions concerning appro- 
priations additional to the proceeds of an established tax suffi- 
cient to meet foreseeable necessities. 

The reader is also reminded again that in California, Illinois, 
and Ohio great universities were excluded from consideration 
whose resources exceed the support provided for State universi- 
ties. The co-operation of the people to secure for themselves 
the services of a comprehensive and efficient university, requires 
in Wisconsin 8% cents, in Minnesota 8% cents, in Michigan 
61/^ cents, in Iowa 7 cents, in Colorado 7^^ cents, without al- 
lowance for cost of collection. These being the states of the 
whole list with which Texas would be most justly and most 
willingly compared, the 8 cents suggested for Texas should 
not startle anybody. 

One of the great advantages of an established tax for educa- 
tional institutions is the fact that the increase of property value 
keeps pace, at the same tax rate, with the increase of students 
and with the increasing needs of a growing population for many 
direct public services. 

The addition of one cent for the normal schools would yield 
at the outset about $250,000 for those four schools — an average 
of $62,500 a year for each State normal school. Under the cur- 
rent appropriations by the Legislature for the two years ending 
August 31, 1913, each normal school receives on the average 
$58,710 a year. If the standards of those schools are to be raised 
and their forces strengthened, it will be necessary to add more 
than one cent for the normal schools, to the eight cents for the 
three higher institutions. The addition of two cents for the nor- 
mal schools would yield $500,000, or an average of $125,000 a 
year for each of those schools. 

A tax of one mill (10 cents on $100) is the levy necessary to 
put and keep all the institutions referred to on a basis of average 
efficiency. If the people of Texas desire to enlarge and strengthen 
their educational institutions so as to secure for themselves such 
services as are enjoyed in the states whose social and industrial 
interests are now profiting by those advantages, they must un- 
doubtedly expend at least the amount here indicated. 

A 10-cents tax for the maintenance and development of the 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 25 

State's educational institutions would yield next year about 
$2,000,000. The 10 cents must be apportioned somehow; for 
example : 

University of Texas 4^^ cents ?1, 125, 000 

A. & M. College, with Prairie View Inst. 

for negroes 3 cents 750,000 

Girls' College i^ cent 125,000 

Four State Normal Schools ($125,000 

each 2 cents 500,000 

Any definite apportionment of the tax would be better than an 
apportionment dependent upon contingent factors. There is no 
factor, or combination of factors, upon which succeeding appor- 
tionments could be made to depend without entailing injurious 
consequences. Temptations to swell factors artificially would 
lead to wasteful or degrading measures. Nothing could be more 
ill advised, for instance, than an apportionment contingently de- 
pendent upon the number of students. Such a law would in- 
evitably tend to corrupt the administration of all the institu- 
tions. The number of students is by no means the controlling 
factor of proper cost. Its bearing may coincide with that of 
other needs, but a great many services to the State and to indi- 
vidual citizens, besides teaching students for the regular term 
of enrollment, are to be taken into account. Every factor, how- 
ever, has its due weight, and it will assist to impartial conclu- 
sions to compare the apportionment, here stated for purposes of 
illustration, with the number of students for the regular term 
of enrollment a year ago, excluding summer schools and corre- 
spondence students. Of the total number of students for regu- 
lar term of enrollment, the University had 60 per cent, the A, 
and M. College 32 per cent, and the Girls' College 8 per cent. 
If 41/2 cents were assigned to the University, 3 cents to the A. 
and M. College, and 1/2 cent to the Girls' College, the University 
would receive 6614 per cent of the total 8 cents for the three 
higher institutions, the A. and M. College 371/2 per cent, and the 
Girls' College 6i^ per cent. 

The statistics in the following table were compiled by Arthur 
Lefevre, sometime Eesearch Secretary of the Hogg Organiza- 
tion for the Enlargement by the State of Texas of its Institu- 
tions of Higher Education : 



26 



Bulletin of the University of Texas 



TABLE I 



1910-1911 

State Universities 

and A & M. 

Collegts 



California 

Colorado 

Illinois* 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

North Dakota. 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 



Average 



State 

tax in 

cents 



2 
4 

4 3/1 
2 3/10 
10 

5 1/3 

2 35/100 
2 6/7 



4.1/2 



Income 
from 
State 
tax 



$710,773 
.313,92:0 



350,014 
287,522 
823,697 
410,285 
391,500 
127,557 
554,517 
783,765 



$432,141 



Addition- 
al appro- 
priations 
by Legis- 
lature 



? 301 
127 

1,097 

237 

728 

74 

1,060 
110 
222 
476 
444, 



From 
United 
States 
Gov'n- 
mont 



75,000 
73,638 
75,0OC' 
75,000 
75,000 
75,000 
73,000 
75,000 
75,000 
45,000 
75,000 



Income 
from 

produc- 
tive 

endow- 
ment 



$203,382 
14,350 
32,468 
61,445 
42,703 

126,767 
59,157 
42,250 

106,506 
08,405 
36,503 



443,737 $ 71,967 $ 72,176$ 53,451 



Income 
from 

private 
dona- 
tions 



$104,898 



200,000 

'23rei2 



5,980 
•15,463 



From 
student 

fees 
and all 

other 
sources 



$276. 
1.32. 
355. 
217. 
285, 
824! 
203: 

130 ; 

83, 
212, 
404. 



Total 
income 
for the 

year 
1910-1911 



?l,672,7ie 

0^:2.454. 

1,500,040 

1,141,453 

1,418,883 

2,155,624 

1,806,800 

748,982 

615,110 

1,363,220 

1,789,469 



$284,233 $1,357,706 







none 


none 


$ 886,022 


$ 75,000 


$ 38,492 




$ 98,533 


$1,098,047 








none 


none 


$ 638,339 


$ 72,187 


$ 64,561 




$ 78,715 


$ 853,793 






Univ of Tex 






$ 295,442 

259,250 

40,325 


$'63^750 


$157,185 
8,234 


$100 


$ 30,564 
33,595 
2,350 


$ 483,291 


A & M. Ool - 






364,829 








42,635 


















none 


none 


$ 595,017 


$ 03,750 


$165,419 


$100 


$ 66,509 


$ 890,795 











*In Illinois the last legislature enacted a law establishing a 10 cents tax for the State 
University, which for the future will more than double the annual appropriation given 
in the table. 

TABLE II 



• 

states 


Population 

Census 1910 


Amount spent by 
State Institutions 
for Higher Edu- 
cation per inhabi- 
tant. 


Assessed valua- 
tion of property 
in the State in 
1910,— all reduc- 
ed to 50 per cent 
of actual value. 


Amount spent by 
State Institutions 
for Higher Edu- 
cation per $1000 
of wealth at 50 
per cent of ac- 
tual value. 


Tax rate in cents 
on $100, at 50 pel 
cent of actual 
value, which 
would provide the 
part of total cost 
paid by the State. 


California 


2,377,549 
799,024 
5,6.38,501 
2,700,870 
2,224,771 
2,810,173 
2,075,708 
1,192,214 
577,056 
4,767,121 
2,333,860 


$ .71 
.83 
.28 
.42 
.64 
.77 
.87 
.63 
1.06 
.29 
.77 


$2,373,897,092 
622,328,666 
3,237,972,675 
1,480,110,080 
1,512,710,640 
1,451,012,615 
1,746,329,110 
1,0.38,675,187 
696,485,482 
1,960,567,3.53 
1,470,706,421 


$ .70 

1.06 

.48 

.77 

.94 

1.48 

1.03 

.72 

.86 

.69 

1.22 


3% 
4 






Indiana 


Iowa 

Michigan 

Minnesota - 


7 

8% 
5 


Nebraska - 


North Dakota 

Ohio 


5% 

5% 

81/2 


Wisconsin 




Average 


2,499,722 


$ .66 


$1,599,163,211 


$ .90 


6 



Kansas _- — — - 


$1,690,949 


$ .65 


$1,528,943,030 


$ .71 


6 






Missouri 


3,293,335 


$ .26 


$2,255,372,739 


$ .38 


3 






Texas — 


3,896,542 


$ .22 


$2,391,109,795 


$ .37 


2%, 







Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 



27 



Texas Compared With the Average of the Foregoing List of Thirteen 

Selected States. 



ITEM. 



Population, 1910. 



Income for Higher Education, 
1911 

Income for Higher Education per 
inhabitant 



Income for Higher Education per 
$1,00 actual w ealth 

Income for Higher Education per 
student in Regular Session. . . . 



Income for Higher Education from 
State Taxes 



Income for Higher Education from 
State Taxes per inhabitant. . . . 



Income for Higher Education from 
Endowment, Fees, etc 



Number of Teachers per hundred 
students 



"Values of 
plants . . 



Higher Educational 



The Average. 



2,500,000 



$1,110,000 



44 cents 



23 cents 



$296.00 



$858,000 



34 cents 



$441,000 



9.3 



$4,430,000 



Texas. 



3,897,000 



$541,000 



15 cents 



16 cents 



$167.00 



$595,000 



15 cents 



$296,000 



6.1 



$3,213,000 



28 Bulletin of the University of Tezas 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF 
MINNESOTA. 

(Statement by the Chief Accountant, July 1, 1915.) 

From the organization of the University of Minnesota in 
1869-70 down to the year 1895, the policy pursued by the 
Legislature was, to make direct appropriations for the support 
of the University. The first annual appropriation was .made 
in 1874 and amounted to $19,000. Later this was increased 
to $23,000; then to $35,000 and again to $40,000 and finally to 
$65,000. This last amount was appropriated for the years 1890 
to 1895. 

There was a good deal of opposition to these appropriations 
and they were secured with more or less difficulty. The State 
was sparsely settled, the people were poor and they felt it their 
duty to cut out every dollar of unnecessary expense. 

About 1890 the State entered upon a period of almost un- 
exampled prosperity. The Regents felt that the time was op- 
portune for a change of policy. After a thorough examination 
of the whole subject, they believed that there would be less 
opposition to a mill-tax and that a larger amount would be 
secured than by the old plan of direct appropriations, and 
as the State was growing rapidly in population as well as in 
wealth, that the income would steadily increase year by year 
without the necessity of going before the Legislature and ask 
for increase of appropriations and be compelled to thresh out 
the whole question as they had been doing for the past twenty- 
five years. 

There was much less opposition to this policy by the Legis- 
lature than there had been from previous Legislatures when the 
amount to be secured was very much less. The first mill-tax 
of 15-100 of one-mill was secured by the Legislature of 1895. 
This continued for three years, when the tax was increased to 
23-100 of a mill. This latter tax has now been in operation for 
sixteen years, and the income derived from the tax has increased 
from $88,904.78 to $324,806.03. There has been no opposition 
to the mill-tax and it seems to give entire satisfaction. 

The income from the mill-tax is supplemented by special ap- 
propriations from the Legislature at every session. 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 29 

Extracts from "A Tentative Report to the Virginia Educa- 
tion Commission on a Mill Tax for the Educational 
System of the State/' By Charles C Maphis, Secretary, 
Charlottesville, Va., October 7, 1910. (Bulletin of the Vir- 
ginia Department of Education, 1912.) 

There are four methods of support now being used: 

(1) Biennial appropriations. 

(2) Annual appropriations for a term of years. 

(3) An appropriation of a fixed percentage of the total gross 
revenues of the State. 

The latter method is used in but one State — Tennessee. 

It is my belief that an appropriation based on property, com- 
monly called a mill tax, is the best of these methods. 

Sixteen States have adopted this method of support for one 
or more of their educational institutions, and twenty-one out of 
eighty-three State universities and other institutions of higher 
education are supported in whole or in. part by a mill tax. 

Summarized and briefly stated, the arguments for the mill tax 
method of support are as follows: 

1. Experience proves that the millage method is the best one. 
Sixteen of the most progressive states, supporting twenty-one 
of the most prosperous institutions, have adopted it, and after 
having an experience with it, pronounce it the best. 

2. It enables the institutions or system thus supported to 
have a fixed policy which shall be in force for an indefinite 
period, and to make far-seeing and wiser plans for future growth 
and needs. No consistent educational policy can be carried out 
without some degree of dependence upon a certain income. The 
administrative officers must have some reasonable anticipation 
of the funds which can be commanded for use, if they are to 
plan wisely and economically. 

Private institutions have an endowment and hence an assured 
income, which, while not often sufficient, is always certain. The 
mill tax amounts to a permanent endowment with the State 
behind it. 

3. It produces a constantly increasing revenue, while private 
endowments, desirable and helpful as they are, produce decreas- 
ing returns on account of lower rates of interest. 

The revenue from a mill tax is certain to grow somewhat from 



30 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

year to year and to grow very considerably when long periods 
of time are taken into consideration. In Minnesota, for in- 
stance, it has doubled in the last ten years. 

Experience in other states has shown that the amount of rev- 
enue will increase with the increase in the wealth of the State 
and in proportion to the growth and needs of the school system. 
It does not always keep up with them, but nearly every State 
which has had a mill tax for any length of time has not only 
continued it, but has increased it, one or more times as the needs 
have demanded. A fixed appropriation continually becomes 
inadequate, and it is difficult to get it increased. 

4. It gives stability to the business efforts of a school system, 
which could not be expected at all if it depended on an annual 
or biennial presentation of the needs of the Legislature. 

5. It provides a stable support in times of financial depres- 
sion and eras of politicalism, such as we had in 1879, when the 
total school revenue fell from $1,000,000 to $512,000, and is, 
therefore, a scientific and practical method of support. 

6. It prevents constant and undignified lobbying throughout 
the session of the Legislature, and avoids the unseemly biennial 
scrambles and unpleasant rivalry among the several State in- 
stitutions before the legislative committee. 

7. It saves much time and annoyance to the legislators them- 
selves by relieving them of the importunities of a most persistent 
and numerous class of lobbyists, and prevents "log-rolling" and 
"wire-pulling" among representatives of different parts of the 
State when one institution is, as it usually is, played against 
another located in a different part of the State. These rivalries 
often lead to unnecessary duplication of work intended only to 
appeal for an appropriation. 

8. It adds to the dignity and self-respect of the school men 
themselves by relieving them of the necessity of engaging in this 
unwilling, unpleasant, but necessary struggle for existence, 
which is an unwise use of the time, energy and ability of the 
president, trustees and friends of an institution, and puts a pre- 
mium on political leadership rather than educational leadership. 
The general progress in this country is toward academic freedom 
and the elimination of politics from education. 

Dr. "Webster Merrifield, for twenty-five years president of the 



Consiitutional Tax for Higher Education 31 

University of North Dakota, writes as follows: "I was chiefly 
responsible for the passage of the mill tax in North Dakota for 
the support of the University and other State schools, and was 
at the head of the University of North Dakota during ten years 
of operation under the tax. My opinion as to the superiority 
of the mill tax is (1) Certainty; (2) Avoidance of unseemly 
scrambles between the several State schools before the appro- 
priation committees of the Legislature; (3) Increase of income 
from year to year fairly proportional to the growth of the State 
in wealth and the growth of the University in numbers and 
needs. Before the passage of the mill tax we never knew before- 
hand whether or not the University was going to receive a fairly 
adequate appropriation for maintenance. There was a recur- 
rence each biennial period of unpleasant rivalry between the 
different State schools. There was need of almost constant and 
always undignified lobbying throughout the session of the Legis- 
lature. I am confident, too, that the University'- has habitually 
received a larger annual income from the tax for maintenance 
than it could have hoped to receive during the same time from 
direct biennial appropriations. Few members of the Legislature 
of 1899 which passed the mill tax realized or ventured to say 
how large an income it would bring to the several State schools. 
Almost every year the Legislature is raided by special institu- 
tions for appropriations. They maintain skilled lobbies, and but 
for the presence on the statute books of the permanent mill tax, 
would often divert to the::velves a p^ortion of the State's total 
income which now goes to the .schools. After ten years of opera- 
tion under the fixed appropriations for State schools, neither the 
schools nor the members of the Legislature would be willing to 
go back to the old system. The legislators themselves are spared 
almost endless 'pulling and hauling' by individuals whom some 
of them are fond of alluding to as 'those educational sharks,' 
and are measurably relieved of the importunities of a most per- 
sistent, if not the most numerous and unscrupulous class of 
lobbyists. For the school men, too, the gain is enormous. I 
was conscious of an immediate and tremendous gain in self- 
respect after being relieved of the necessity of engaging in a 
biennial scramble for existence, institutionally speaking. And 
if now the fixed tax for maintenance could be supplemented by 



32 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

another for building purposes, I should feel that the life of a 
State university president is as nearly ideal as is often realized 
on this earth." 

President Charles VanHise, of the University of Wisconsin, 
writes in reference to the mill tax: "The fundamental argu- 
ment which we used in its advocacy was that in a rapidly grow- 
ing State a fixed appropriation continually becomes inadequate 
because the University grows in proportion to the growth of 
the State. I showed that this theory was in accordance with 
the facts, that the growth of the University has been more rapid 
than the increase in income, and that in consequence, it was 
becoming increasingly difficult to keep our work up to a high 
school standard. These ideas were finally accepted by the Leg- 
islature and we were granted two-sevenths of a mill tax, which, 
when it went into effect, raised our income approximately 
$200,000 per annum. Since that time the increase in assessed 
valuation of the property of the State has increased our in- 
come annually not less than $33,000, and the increase in 1908 
is $63,000." 

A mill tax is seemingly so slight that it does not raise the vio- 
lent opposition to be found in an attempt to pass direct appro- 
priations, and again the proceeds of the mill tax continue to 
increase as the property of the State increases. The mill tax in 
the State of Minnesota has doubled in the last ten years — 
$135,000 in 1900, $265,000 in 1910. 

Dr. J. K. Patterson, president of the State College of Ken- 
tucky, whose institution has been supported by a mill tax of one- 
twentieth of a mill for the past twenty-seven years, writes that 
he prefers this method of support because it is less subject to 
the caprice of the Legislature. He states that the mill tax is 
not likely to be repealed in Kentucky. 

Dr. Charles A. Lowry, president of the State Agricultural 
College, Fort Collins, Colorado, writes that the mill tax for his 
institution and that of the other State institutions is for sup- 
port, and buildings, if the money is not all needed for support. 
The advantage of the mill tax lies in the fact that the authori- 
ties always have a definite basis to figure on. The Legislature is 
more or less a changeable body, and unless a definite amount 
is provided, the authorities and the State institutions never 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 33 

know what to count on. Very often hardly enough is appro- 
priated for maintenance. Again, a great deal is appropriated 
so that work can be started which must later be given up, 
when an economical Legislature comes into power. 

Mr, E. W. Stanton, secretary of Iowa State College, writes 
that his institution received the proceeds of a tax of one-fifth 
of a mill for building purposes which yielded in 1909-10 $135,000. 
The tax runs for five years, but has been renewed twice, and he 
hopes to have it extended for another five-year period in 1912. 
Since the first tax came into effect in 1900, the total income 
by the close of 1912 will be something more than $1,400,000. 
The buildings on the college grounds are inventoried at some- 
thing over $1,600,000 of this value. Prior to 1900 the depart- 
ment buildings Mere temporary structures utterly inadequate 
to meet the growing needs of the institution. The millage tax 
lifted the college out of these temporary buildings into fire- 
proof, durable structures that last for generations. This result 
could not have been accomplished by direct appropriations from 
the general revenues of the State. The millage tax enables 
trustees and faculty to plan wisely in the matter of buildings, 
and has helped in no small measure to the symetrical develop- 
ment of the institutions, the fund for their support must be 
taken out of the general revenues, and this is always insufficient. 
Under the tax method the income gradually increases with the 
increase of the wealth of the State. 

Excerpts from the "Eeport of H. S. Pritchett, Chairman of 

THE Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
Teaching. 1908." 

The most impressive feature of the advance of the tax-sup- 
ported institutions is the generous support accorded to them by 
their respective states. Several states now contribute annually 
a million dollars each to the support of their respective state 
universities, and in some states the bulk of this income comes 
in the form of a mill tax which is rendered without action of the 
Legislature and which increases automatically with each revalu- 
ation of State property. A million dollars a year is, however, 
a very modest sum for a great and rich state like Wisconsin, 
or Illinois, or California to spend on its State University. These 



34 Bvlleiin of the University of Texas 

institutions may confidently expect incomes far larger than 
any privately endowed universities can hope to enjoy. It is 
clear that State support of education in a commonwealth edu- 
cated to that ideal is the most generous and constant source from 
which such support can be drawn. . . . There is one feature 
of State support of education which is worth noting. In the 
. earlier days the State University president was expected to lobby 
for his annual appropriation. In the better institutions tnat 
day has gone by. The State University president goes before 
committees of the Legislature with his budget. He appears there 
not as a beggar but as a State officer, exactly as the head of a 
government bureau goes before the committees of appropriations 
of Congress. 

Excerpts from "A Counsel of Perfection: A Plan for An 
Automatic Collection and Distribution of a State Tax 
FOR Higher Education.'' By J. G. Rosengarten. Re- 
printed from the Proceedings of the American Philosoph- 
ical Society, Vol. 52, No. 209, April, 1913. 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, "Wisconsin, are among the 
western states which have State universities. In their State 
Constitutions provision is made for an automatic assignment of 
a small part of the State taxes for their support. Thus all 
appeal to the State Legislature for support is made unnecessary. 
In Wisconsin, and in many other universities, colleges, etc., the 
United States Land Grant is made part of the endowment of 
the State University, and for agricultural and technical schools. 
Iowa has recently put all its educational institutions under a 
single governing board. All the western universities have out 
of the increasing wealth and revenues of their states provided 
incomes growing in proportion to their needs, and their activ^i- 
ties keep pace with them. 

Dr. James B, Angell, President of the University of Michi- 
gan, gives the following reasons for preferring a mill tax: 

"1, When several items are named, great difficulty for legis- 
lative committees, two to three of which in each house have to 
act; difficult to make some members appreciate need of some 
items. 

' ' 2. A university should know approximately some few years 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 35 

at least in advance what it can depend on, in order to have 
a policy. 

"3. As one legislature cannot bind its successors, it has hap- 
pened to us to have one provide for establishing a department 
and when professors and apparatus have been secured and stu- 
dents have come, the next Legislature has failed to continue it 
and much embarrassment has followed, e. g., our school of mines. 

"Whereas, our experience shows that once the mill tax is 
adopted, the disposition of Legislatures is to increase it, not to 
abolish it. 

' ' Begin with a modest rate, and trust the future for growth. ' ' 



36 



Bulletin of the University of Texas 



The Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau State- 
ments. Institutions of Higher Education Recoeiving 
State Aid by Taxation or Appropriation. 



state. 



Institution. 



MiU Tax 
Rate. 



Receipts 

from Mill 

Tax. 



Appropri- 
ation lor 
Current 
Expenses . 



Alabama- 



Arizona 

Arkansas-- 
California. 
Colorado-- 



Connecticut- 

Delaware 

Florida 



Georgia. 



Hawaii-. 
Idalio... 

Illinois— 
Indiana- 



lowa- 



Kansas- 



Kentueky.. 
Louisiana- 



Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 



Michigan— 
Miimesota- 



Mississippi- 



Missourl- 
Montana. 

Nebraska 
Nevada-- 



Alabama Polytechnic Institute 

University of Alabama 

University of Arizona 

University of Arkansas 

University of California 

University of Colorado 

Colorado State Agricultural College 

Colorado School of Mines 

State Teachers College of Colorado 

Connecticut Agricultural College 

Delaware College 

University of Florida 

Florida State College for Women- 
University of Georgia 

Georgia School of Technology-- 

North Georgia Agricultural College 

College of Hawaii 

University of Idaho 

University of Illinois 

Indiana University 

Purdue University (Ind.) 

Iowa State College of Agriculture 

and Mechanic Arts 

Iowa State Teachers College 

State University of Iowa 

University of Kansas 

Kansas State Agricultural CoUegC-- 

State University of Kentucky 

Louisiana State University and Agri- 
cultural and Mechanical College- 
University of Maine 

Maryland Agricultural College 

Massachusetts Agricultural CoUege.. 
Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology 

University of Michigan 

Michigan Agricultural College 

Michigan College of Mines 

..jUniversity of Minnesota 

. Mississippi Agricultural and Me- 
chanical College 

Mississippi Industrial Institute and 

College 

University of Mississippi 

University of Missouri 

Montana College of Agriculture and 

Mechanic Arts 

Montana State School of Mines 

University of Montana 

University of Nebraska 

University of Nevada 



2/5 
1/5 
1/5 
1/5 



1* 

1/10 

1/10 

1/5 

1/10 

1/5 



1/20 



3/8 
1/10 



23/100 



1 

1/2 



$160,000 
85,843 
80,210 
80,000 



180,000 
179,504 

182,200t 

50,000+ 

175,0OOt 



730,657 
202,210 



374,103 
41,0i39 



*First income from this source will be available July 1, 1913. 
+For buildings and permanent improvements. 



$ 68,500 
81,000 
47,170 
90,980 
253,870 
30,000 
44,330 

35,000 
31,375 

12,000 

29,885 

40,000 

$118,025 

75,000 

21,500 

10,000 

52,000 

1,465,650 

75,000 

121,691 

488,018 
181,750 
428,825 
434,883 
373,250 
165,077^ 

124,500 

115,000 

36,000 

212,512 

29,000 
9,000 

65,000 
831,205 

179,499 

70,000 
32,250 
513,393 

76,402 
33,000 
100,000 
92,215 
60,526 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 



37 



state. 



New Hampshire- 
New Jersey 

New Mexico 



New York 

North Carolina- 



North Dakota- 
Ohio— — . 



Oklahoma- 



Oregon- 



Pennsylvania 

Porto Rico 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina- 



South Dakota-— 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah— 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia — 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 



Institution. 



New Hampshire CoUege of Agricul- 
ture and Mechanic Arts 

Rutgers College 

University of Mexico 

New Mexico School of Mines 

New Mexico College of Agriculture 

and Mechanic Arts 

Cornell University 

University of North Carolina 

North Carolina College of Agricul- 
ture and Mechanic Arts 

North Dakota Agricultural CoUege.. 

University of North Dakota 

Ohio University 

Ohio State University 

Miami University 

University of Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Agricultural and Me- 
chanical College 

Oklahoma State School of Mines 

and Metallurgy 

State Agricultural CoUege 

University of Oregon 

State College 

Universitv of Porto Rico 

Rhode Island State College 

South Carolina Military Academy... 

Clemson Agricultural College 

University of South Carolina 

South Dakota State CoUege of Ag- 
riculture and Mechanic Arts 

South Dakota State School of Mines 

University of South Dakota 

University of Tennessee 

University of Texas 

Agricultural and Mechanical College 

of Texas 

Agricultural College of Utah 

University of Utah 

University of Vermont and State 

Agricultural College 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

University of Virginia 

Virginia Military Institute 

College of WiUiam and Mary 

State College of Washington 

University of Washington 

West Virginia University 

University of Wisconsin 

University of Wyoming 



MiU Tax 
Rate. 



Receipts 

from Mill 

Tax. 



Appropri- 
ation for 
Current 
Expenses . 



65/100 



39,590 



1/5 
33/100 

17/2000 

107/2000 

17/2000 



56,221 
92,786 
88,490 
397,527 
83,301 



114,113 



66,139 



65,839 
150,000 



3/8 

1/2 



1,103,029 
84,161 



14,028 
50,476 
39,590 
19,000 

16,000 
326,152 
87,000 

83,000 
25,000 
51,455 
48,750 
95,754 
69,788 
150,000 

100,000 

no report 
179,500 
125,000 
269,260 
83,025- 
27,000 
32,278 

69,106 

68,500 
30,250 
96,000 

268,455 

208,697 
30,000 



26,000 
67,683 
92,667 
40,000 
40,000 
267,000 
379,000 
145,000 
164,000 



t Fertilizer tax. 

§1% per cent, of gross revenue of the state. 
117.94 per cent, of 4% mills on the dollar. 
^18.04 per cent, of 4% mills on the doUar. 



38 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

Excerpts from Ohio University Bulletin, Athens, Ohio, 
January, 1913, by President Alston Ellis: 

Universities supported wholly, or in part, by a definite mill 
tax represent the following named states : Colorado, 2/5 ; 
Iowa, 1/5 ; Indiana, 1/10 ; Illinois, 1 ; Kentucky, 1-20 ; Michi- 
gan, 3/g ; Minnesota, 23/100 ; Nebraska, 1/5 ; Nevada, 1/2 ; North 
Dakota, 33/100, Ohio, four institutions and two normal schools, 
33/400; Washington, 19/40; Wyoming, 1/2. 

The states giving their universities support hy direct legis- 
lative appropriations are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas, 
Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Car- 
olina, South Dakota, and Texas — 12. 

California has a permanent fund for the support of its uni- 
versity, and this fund increases automatically at the rate of 7 
per cent per annam. The University of Utah receives 64.43 
per cent of 28 per cent of the total revenues of the State. Ten- 
nessee gives to its university, 7 per cent of 25 per cent of its total 
revenue. The University of Minnesota, included in the mill tax 
list, receives two-thirds of its income of $1,066,000 from direct 
appropriations. In Texas, there is agitation for the submission 
of a constitutional amendment providing for a mill tax for the 
support of the University of Texas, the Agricultural and Me- 
chanical College, the College of Industrial Arts, and the four 
State normal schools for white teachers. 

Replies to the second question showed twenty-three advocates 
of a definite mill tax for the support of a State's educational 
agencies. 

Six statements received left the space below the question 
vacant. In no single case did anyone reporting favor the sup- 
port of the State 's institutions of learning by direct appropria- 
tions alone. 

A few statements following the second question are herewith 
given for the reason that they are worthy of consideration in 
themselves and are fairly indicative of the general purport of 
all the reports received: 

Wyoming — ' ' Support of higher education by a state-wide mill 
tax is the best method of supplying educational needs. This 
method avoids the perils and uncertainties of the usual legis- 
lative process. It is not burdensome, the tax always being a 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 39 

small proportion of each individual's tax bills. It produces 
an automatically growing income as assessments rise. Boards 
can plan wisely for years ahead." 

Texas — The Biennial Report of the Board of Regents of the 
University of Texas, contains the following statements: "It is 
generally agreed that the plan of relying on appropriations 
from the general revenue, made biennially, is open to grave 
objections, and we do not recommend such appropriations unless 
the Legislature should decline to provide for the University's 
necessities by means of the special tax that is recommended. A 
university, of all institutions, should be managed reasonably and 
prudently, on the basis of plans deliberately chosen, and pro- 
viding for an orderly development stretching over a series of 
years. Such a conduct of affairs is impossible under the sys- 
tem of biennial appropriations. What will be done by legisla- 
tures and governors two, four, and six years in the future can- 
not possibly be foreseen. This compels the Regents to pursue 
a hand-to-mouth policy, inconsistent with the interests of the 
University and destructive of prudent and economical manage- 
ment. 

"The entanglements of the University in factional politics 
constitutes, if possible, a graver objection to the system of bien- 
nial appropriations for its maintenance. The officers of the 
University should not be called upon to lobby, however im- 
portant the end to be obtained or unexceptional the methods 
employed. Men engaged in educational service should be free 
to devote their best energies to their high functions. Above all, 
the University itself should be so supported as to be wholly 
independent of partisan caprice." 

Mai7ie — "We believe that a mill tax would be a better way 
of supporting higher education for these reasons : 

(1) The amount appropriated would grow as the wealth of 
the State increased. 

(2) Continuous plans could be made that would extend 
through a long series of years. 

(3) The satisfaction coming from a definite understanding 
of what income would be available would be worth a great deal." 

Indiana — "We believe thoroughly in the wisdom of this 
method of supporting educational institutions." 



40 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

Michigan — "From the point of view of the University, the 
value of a mill tax lies in its permanency and certainty. The 
Regents or Trustees of a University are undoubtedly better 
judges of its needs than the Legislature can be. The Regents, 
when they have the advantage of a definite, minimum income to 
figure on, are able to lay plans for the future, and to establish 
a definite policy, which has as great advantage for the University 
as any other definite, well-laid-out scheme has over a slip-shod, 
hand-to-mouth policy. ' ' 

NeljrasUa — "The advantage to us of our tax rate is as follows: 
While the proceeds must be biennially appropriated, the Leg- 
islature regards this as money collected for the benefit of the 
institution and appropriates it usually without a dissenting vote. 
It appropriates it for the benefit of the institution, and does not 
require that the items be specified. Thus we avoid the need of 
making out an itemized budget in advance." 

"As the State increases in wealth, the revenues increase au- 
tomatically, hence the great growth of the institution has been 
in part met by the revenues that have flown in through the in- 
crease of the taxable property of the State. It gives us some- 
thing approaching the income of an endowment." 

Oklahoma— ^^1. The University of Oklahoma is not supported 
by a mill tax. II. The State University should have a perma- 
nent mill tax devoted to its support, because : 

"(1) The management of the school would then be able to 
provide a continuous and progressive policy, covering a- consid- 
erable number of years. 

"(2) The University would be relieved from sudden fluctua- 
tions' in public opinion either favorable to or antagonistic to 
the University. 

" (3) The president of the University would be relieved from 
the temptation to make appointments or confer other political 
favors in exchange for influence in passing the University ap- 
propriations through the Legislature." 

South Carolina — " (1) The authorities would be better able 
to plan their financial policy, having a fairly definite estimate 
as to their income. 

" (2) The institution would be kept out of politics. 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 41 

"(3) The income of the institution would grow in propor- 
tion to the growth of the State. 

*'(4) It would emphasize the unity of the system." 

In a letter from Hon. P. P. Claxton, United States Commis- 
sioner of Education, bearing the date of November 13, 1912, are 
found the following statements: 

"I am much interested in your statement in regard to the 
probability that an effort will be made to abolish the mill tax 
for the support of the institutions of higher learning in Ohio. 
Unless some better plans of supporting institutions is provided 
immediately, this would doubtless be a great mistake. And it 
would be difficult to find a better means. So far, the mill tax 
for the support of State schools has proven to be most satisfac- 
tory. The reasons for this are very easy to understand: 

"First, it assures a steady income. 

"Second, this income increases, naturally, as the population 
and wealth of the State increases, and in proportion to the cor- 
responding needs for larger support of the schools. 

"Third, if the income from this source should prove too small 
or too large, it could easily be changed by making a change in 
the rate. 

"Fourth, it prevents the possibility of juggling with funds. 

"Fifth, it obviates the unseemly destructive squabbles which 
sometimes arise between those interested in and responsible for 
the support of the lower schools and the institutions of higher 
learning. 

' ' I look with misgiving, that some business sense awakens, upon 
the plan that has been proposed of abolishing the mill tax for 
the support of the schools and the State educational institu- 
tions. The carrying out of that plan means the placing of them 
upon an uncertain and insecure financial basis. Under such 
a condition of financial chaos, no intelligent effort could project 
itself far into the future. The proposition is suggestive of a 
management without stability, force or efficiency. A precarious 
revenue would tie the hands and hold back energies of every 
one working in any manner for the educational upbuilding of 
the State. 

"Then, too, all business experience protests against the aban- 
donment of the present system of providing for educational 



42 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

maintenance. No enterprise of any moment should be entered 
upon before ways and means for its intelligent prosecution have 
been wisely considered and adequately provided. The most 
disagreeable feature connected with the management of the edu- 
cational institutions in our State is the necessity that forces 
those in control of them to make application to the General 
Assembly for special appropriations. Added to this loss of 
time and energy, which under more satisfactory conditions could 
be better expended elsewhere, is the fear, forcing to active effort, 
that all-advised legislation may sweep away, in a day, the little 
fund made, as it were, an endowment by past legislative wisdom. 
The thought and activity much neded to promote work within 
the institution and make known its scope and value to those who 
might be induced thereby to avail themselves of its adrantages 
are w^eakened by the necessity of lobbying efforts to hold ap- 
propriated revenue and to secure much-needed additions thereto. 

"A certain mill tax revenue should need no advocacy before 
those who are really desirous of promoting the growth of the 
State's educational institutions. The sign-board of experience 
points unerringly to the kind of business management these in- 
stitutions should be under to put them in a favorable condition 
for accomplishing, with good result, the purpose for which 
they were established. Give them a certain revenue, as liberal 
in amount as all considerations and conditions make advisable ; 
place them under the control of boards whose membership has 
been judiciously selected; and then free them from threats of 
unwise legislative interference. Under such a policy every edu- 
cational institution in the State would feel the thrill of new life 
and a more energized purpose. Institutions' well-being suggests 
a definite, reliable financial support. This will never come by 
annual or biennial special appropriations — always, as experience 
has proved, matters involved in much uncertainty — a feast to- 
day ; a famine tomorrow. ' ' 

Arthur Lefevre, Secretary for Eesearch, State of Texas, re- 
ferring to the injurious rivalry, on the part of different educa- 
tional institutions, as seen in ever recurring scrambles before 
legislatures for appropriations, hits the mark when he says : . 

"A State tax for the institutions of higher education, defi- 
nitely apportioned between them by the law levying the tax, 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 43 

would remove entirely the ground of the argument in question. 
This is th-e only right arrangement for applying the State's 
support, and it also represents the best practice. It is remark- 
able that this effective remedy seems not to suggest itself to 
advocates of concentration or of central boards." 

Summary op Points in Favor of a Mill Tax. 

Adapted from a bulletin issued by the University of Kansas 

in 1912, entitled, "A Plea for a Mill Tax." 

1. A mill tax would benefit the State's higher educational in- 
stitutions. It would en.sure a more healthy growth of such in- 
stitutions, because normal gro^'^i:h in an educational institution 
is possible only when plans providing for such growth can be 
made, extending over a number of years. 

2. It would make it less easy for other universities to take 
some of the best teachers from Texas, as they have been doing, 
because of the greater permanence of these universitis in the 
matter of income, and the greater certainty Avith which their 
teachers can depend on the continuance of their work. 

3. It would make it possible to take better care of the details 
of the schools' administration. Under the present system, the 
University budget for the expenditures in June, 1917, had to 
be compiled in the fall of 1914,— almost three years ahead. 
With a permanent income, each year would be provided for as 
occasion required and the administration would know definitely 
what to count on. 

4. It would save the time of administrative heads and mem- 
bers of the faculty who are compelled by their duty to the 
interests entrusted to them by the state to go to Austin and 
exert their efforts to have these interests understood by the 
Legislature, in order to prevent the doing of some serious injury 
to some branch of the educational or state service work through 
oversight or lack of knowledge. 

5. It would relieve administrative heads from the humiliation 
of being criticised for attending committee sessions at the Leg- 
islature and doing the necessary legislative work to which their 
devotion and duty to their institutions obligates them. 

6. It would put Texas among the states which have already 
given their educational institutions the advantage of perma- 
nent incomes by fixed tax: Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, 



44 Bulletin of the University of Texas 

Minnesota, Colorado, California, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, and 
others. 

7. It would remove all temptation from educational insti- 
tutions to save their interests by resorting to political methods. 
No State institution would ever be drawn into politics. 

8. It would put the maintenance of the higher educational 
institutions on a permanent basis, removing them from the 
danger of having their revenues curtailed by caprice or financial 
depression, and enabling the administration to pursue a definite 
business-like policy. 

9. It would insure the gradual and proportionate increase 
of the revenues for education as the value of the property in 
the State increases, providing automatically the larger means 
of meeting growing needs. 

10. It would emphasize the insignificance of the cost of edu- 
cation to the individual taxpayer. If he pays taxes on a valua- 
tion of $10,000 the mill tax would cost him $10. Would any 
man question that the presence in the State of educational in- 
stitutions, doing an immense amount of State service work, adds 
not one but many dollars to the value of each thousand dollars 
worth of property that he possesses? 

11. A permanent tax would relieve the legislator from the 
responsibility of the present large total of appropriations, re- 
moving from his shoulders the burden of practically the entire 
educational budget of the State. It would also relieve him 
from the well-meant but sometimes over-zealous importunities 
of the advocates of the various institutions. It would save 
the time of legislators who are now compelled to study the in- 
tricacies of appropriation bills while occupied with scores of 
other legislative matters. To understand thoroughly the details 
of the University appropriation bill alone would require all the 
time that the ordinary legislator can devote to the duties of 
the legislative session. 

12. It would build up more creditable institutions. By elim- 
inating competition it would make towards a better co-operation 
among the various schools, and a consequent increase of efficiency 
and value to the State. 

13. It would result in a more economic administration of 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 45 

the educational institutions because system based on a stable 
and calculable income always means economy. 

14. It would be to the advantage of the taxpayers because 
it would insure their getting the greatest possible efficiency 
out of the State schools, the greatest possible value for their 
money, since only with a fixed and permanent income can an 
educational institution do its best work. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Taxation and Revenue Systems of State and Local Govern- 
ments: Being a digest of constitutional and statutory provi- 
sions to Taxation in the different states, 1912. By the United 
States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The Mill Tax as a Basis for a Perm^anent Income for all of 
the State Educational Institutions. A pamphlet by the Alumni 
Association, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 

A Study of the Financial Basis of the State Universities and 
Agricultural Colleges in Fourteen States. By Arthur Lefevre, 
sometime Secretary for Research of the Hogg Organization for 
the Enlargement by the State of Texas of Its Institutions of 
Higher Education, Austin, Texas. 

A Counsel of Perfection : A Plan for An Automatic Col- 
lection and Distribution of a State Tax for Higher Education. 

Pamphlet by J. G. Rosengarten. Reprinted from the Pro- 
ceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 52, No. 209, 
April, 1913. 

The Organization and Admmistration of a State's Institutions 
of Higher Education, by Arthur Lefevre. Published by the 
Hogg Organization, Austin, Texas. 

The Future of the University of Texas: Its Duties, Oppor- 
tunities, Prospects. A Final Message to the Board of Regents 
by former President S. E. Mezes, University, Austin. 

Statistics of State Universities and Other Institutions of 
Higher Education Partially Supported by the State. A pam- 
phlet by the United States Bureau of Education, Washington, 
D. C, i910. 

Eleventh Biennial Report of the Board of Regents of tlie 
University of Texas, 1904. 

Fourteenth Biennial Report of the Board of Regents of the 
University of Texas, 1910. 

Fifteenth Biennial Report of the Board of Regents of the 
University of Texas, 1912, pp. 11-15. 

The Special Tax fo rthe University of Texas. A pamphlet 
issued by the UniA^ersity, 1911. 

State Support of Public Schools in Ohio. Bulletin .of the 
Ohio University, February, 1913, Athens, Ohio. A strong 
affirmative argument. 

Report of the Virginia Education Commission to the General 
Assembly, 1912. Universitv of Virginia, Richmond, Va., pp. 
64-80. 



Constitutional Tax for Higher Education 47 

Proceedings of the Thirty-second Texas Legislature, Regular 
Session of 1911. State Library, Austin, Texas. 

Better Financial Support for the Public Schools, by President 
Alston Ellis, in Ohio University Bulletin for January, 1913. 
Athens, Ohio. 

Report of the State Superintendent- of Public Instruction, 
Austin, Texas, 1910. 



tion to deliver public lectures in Texas towns, when asked to do so. 
About a hundred lectures in fifteen different lines of work are now 
available. 

Public Welfare Division. 
It is the purpose of this division to collect data regarding economic 
conditions in the State and to furnish the same to citizens of Texaa 
through exhibits of photographs, charts, diagrams, statistics, etc., 
supplemented by illustrated lectures and printed bulletins. 

Division of Public School Improvement. 

" The Division of Public School Improvement has charge of the 
various educational exhibits sent out by the University to fairs and 
other large gatheringB, for the purpose of calling the attention of 
the people to some of the crying needs of Texas and pointing out the 
most intelligent method of meeting these needs. 

Correspondence Division. 

The University of Texas now offers for home study correspondence 
courses in the following subjects of college grade: Botany, Civil 
Engineering, Drawing, Economics, Education, Electrical Engineer- 
ing, English, French, Geology, German, Government, Greek, History, 
Latin, Mathematics, Mining, Engineering, Philosophy, Public Speak- 
ing, Spanish, and Zoology. 

The following correspondence courses preparatory to Teachers 
Certificates are also offered: Algebra, Bookkeeping, Chemistry, 
Geometry (Plane and Solid), History of Education, History (gen- 
eral). Literature, Physics, Psychology, and Trigonometry. 

Programs and courses of study for clubs or other associations are 
also offered. Correspondence is invited. 

For complete list of bulletins of the Department of Extension, 
address the Extension Librarian, University, Austin. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 289 621 4 



